2016: The Year of Diversity in Clinical Trials

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D.

Controlled clinical trials provide a critical base of evidence for evaluating whether a medical product is effective before the product is approved for marketing. One challenge that remains for FDA is ensuring that research participants are representative of the patients who will use the medical product.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., MACC, FDA's Commissioner of Food and DrugsMoving from the result of a clinical trial to applying it in practice is complex. But it’s generally agreed that the composition of the population enrolled in a trial should help FDA reviewers, clinicians, or policy makers to have confidence that the trial results will apply to future practice.

Furthermore, a wide range of people should have the opportunity to participate in trials, both for access to new therapies and to have the chance to contribute to better treatment of everyone, an important altruistic goal for many Americans.

Historically, the elderly, women (in some therapeutic areas), and racial/ethnic minorities have been underrepresented in trials. A substantial body of literature has documented this under-representation in recent years, particularly for women in some cardiovascular trials and general inclusion of black/African-American and minority participants in clinical trials. In response to these concerns, Congress included Section 907 in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012, giving FDA direction to evaluate this issue and take action.

FDA has responded in multiple ways, including the creation of Drug Trials Snapshots that give the public readouts of the demographic profile of people participating in clinical trials for approved drugs. While progress has been made, we’ve learned from this program that we still have work to do. An evaluation of the Snapshots since the program began more than a year ago shows that some groups, especially ethnic and racial groups, aren’t always well represented in clinical trials.

These data are critical, because certain groups of patients may respond differently to therapies. For example, studies for a recently approved schizophrenia drug found that one side effect – the urge to move constantly – was seen more often in black/African-American patients. Two important classes of blood pressure drugs were found to work less well in black patients. And a drug for heart failure works very well in black patients but not in white patients. We also have seen labeling changes due to differences in dosing requirements between men and women, such as the recent labeling change with a sleep medication. These few examples show the importance of improving diversity in clinical trials, so medical products are safe and effective for everyone.

Increasing diversity in clinical trials is a priority for FDA. To that end, in 2016, the Agency is planning a variety of activities to push for greater inclusion, including more minority participation. For example:

  • FDA’s Office of Minority Health has developed a variety of tools to support clinical trial participation, including collaboration with the National Library of Medicine to help consumers and patients find clinical trials, educational materials on trials, as well as a multi-media campaign highlighting the importance of clinical trial participation. These materials are designed to urge those underrepresented in clinical trials to find out more information, and consider enrolling.
  • FDA’s Office of Women’s Health launched its Diverse Women in Clinical Trials initiative. Developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health, this multipronged effort will raise awareness and share best practices about clinical research design, recruitment, and subpopulation analyses.
  • Our biostatisticians, trial design experts, and quantitative scientists will continue to work with the research community to develop methods to refine our approach to the conduct and analysis of trials to provide the best estimates of treatment effects for diverse populations.
  • We will continue our commitment to include patient advocacy groups to engage patients in clinical trial design, feedback and evaluation from a patient’s perspective. By engaging patients early in the trial design process, feasibility and participation may be improved.
  • Finally, our Office of External Affairs plans to publish a consumer update describing what it is like to participate in a clinical trial and encouraging the public to enroll in trials, if possible.

As mentioned above, these activities – and, indeed, the Snapshot program itself – were conceived as part of FDA’s response to Section 907 of FDASIA. This provision directed FDA to conduct an inventory of how well various population groups were being represented in clinical trials of FDA-regulated medical products and whether these data were publicly reported. Once that was done, FDA was directed to develop an action plan, which we published in August 2014. And we’ve been diligently working toward implementation and sustainability ever since.

As you heard from Barb Buch, M.D., Associate Director for Medicine at CBER, earlier this month, the public meeting at the end of next month will continue the dialogue with important stakeholders –like you – to continue this momentum.

And there’s more to come.

We want to make 2016 the year of more diversity in clinical trials. But we can’t do it alone. Stay tuned in the coming months for how we can work together to make this critical goal a reality.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., previously FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco, became FDA’s Commissioner of Food and Drugs on Feb. 25, 2016

Making Progress in Protecting Consumers from Unsafe Supplements

By: Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

An estimated 200 million Americans take dietary supplements to maintain or improve their health. Protecting consumers from unsafe or contaminated dietary supplements is extremely important to FDA.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.We’ve recently taken a number of important steps to prevent illnesses and deaths from unsafe supplements, and, while our current authority over supplements is arguably limited, we are doing what we can to strengthen our existing oversight. I’d like to give you a picture of the challenges, achievements and opportunities regarding the regulation of these products, beginning with the challenges.

One challenge is sheer volume. The dietary supplements industry is one of the fastest-growing in the world. When the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was passed by Congress in 1994, annual sales of dietary supplements totaled about $5.8 billion. Since then, sales have risen six-fold to about $35 billion annually. Large volumes of supplements are also now sold on the Internet. The significant growth in the dietary supplements industry, and the various ways supplements reach consumers, outpace FDA’s resources to regulate this industry.

Moreover, tracing these products can be difficult because supply chains are often fragmented, with a single product sometimes passing through numerous suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of all kinds, sizes, and locations (including those overseas). Ultimately, when proper quality control and recordkeeping procedures are not followed across the supply chain, it can be difficult to guarantee what ingredients in what amounts are in the final product, and whether the ingredients are safe or even qualify as dietary supplements.

Under DSHEA, FDA does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed to consumers. However, we do have the authority to take enforcement actions after a product is on the market – only when we can establish that the dietary supplement is adulterated (e.g., unsafe); misbranded (e.g., misrepresentations are made on the product labeling); or cannot be marketed as a dietary supplement (e.g., an unapproved new drug). We monitor the marketplace through market surveys, undercover buys, label reviews, a review of reports of illness or deaths, and product testing. When necessary, we take actions to protect public health, including issuing public warnings, taking legal action, and working with the company to recall the product. But all this must be done based on evidence and within the bounds of our legal authority and limited resources.

Despite these constraints, our actions have produced important results over the past year. Here are just a few key accomplishments:

  • At the request of FDA, this month U.S. Marshals seized almost 90,000 bottles of dietary supplements labeled as containing kratom. Kratom has been indicated to have both narcotic and stimulant-like effects.
  • Use of pure powdered caffeine products has already resulted in the deaths of two teenagers. We took action to help prevent harm, including deaths, from the use of these products, by issuing warning letters to five distributors of these potentially dangerous products.
  • In 2015, FDA identified products containing BMPEA, DMBA and picamilon that are unlawfully marketed and issued a series of warning letters to 24 companies that marketed dietary supplements containing these ingredients. The companies that received the warning letters market products that are either misbranded for falsely declaring the ingredients as dietary ingredients or marketing products containing new dietary ingredients without the required pre-market notification.
  • We worked closely with our government partners, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, on a year-long sweep to identify potentially unsafe products and/or products containing undeclared ingredients. In November 2015, that sweep culminated in civil injunctions and criminal actions against 117 manufacturers and/or distributors of dietary supplements and tainted products.
  • We issued more than 100 consumer alerts warning about products falsely marketed as dietary supplements that were found to contain active pharmaceutical ingredients.
  • We conducted more than 600 inspections of dietary supplement firms in the U.S. and other countries. We also worked with companies on voluntary compliance actions, such as removing illegal claims, destroying inventory and ceasing distribution.

I am excited about the opportunities that await us in this area, and the plans we’re making for the future. For example, within FDA, we have established the new Office of Dietary Supplement Programs and are working on increasing the visibility, capacity and staffing for that new office. This will include hiring permanent leadership to sharpen our focus on potential safety problems and to support regulatory actions.

We want to expand our use of criminal investigation and enforcement tools to address serious safety-related violations and cases of intentional fraud; and further build strategic investigatory and enforcement collaborations with the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and state governments, including state health departments and attorneys general.

Ultimately our top priority is to protect the consumers who want to improve, not damage, their health and have a right to expect that dietary supplements will be safe for them and their families.

Stephen Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Advancing Women’s Health Research

By: Pamela E. Scott, Ph.D.

Career inspiration can come from many sources. My inspiration came from a broken ankle.

Pamela ScottIn the winter of 1999, I broke several bones and had three surgeries to repair my ankle. While working with my doctors on my treatment plan, I had to make some serious decisions about the proposed medical devices that would be used in my care.

I had more information at my fingertips than the average person. I was an FDA insider who had worked on medical devices. I had worked as a statistical reviewer, and I was in the process of completing my PhD in epidemiology and clinical trials methodology. But despite my background and access to information, I still had questions about how well the devices work for women like me.

My experience motivated me to make sure that women have the data and information they need to make informed choices about their medical care. When I returned to FDA, I dedicated my efforts to promoting women’s health research. Years later, I continue this work in my current role as Deputy Director and Director of Research and Development for the FDA Office of Women’s Health (OWH).

Throughout its history, FDA has conducted research to help inform its regulatory and policy decisions. OWH and FDA Centers have supported research that has developed new methods and tools that can help predict the safety and efficacy of FDA-regulated products, identify sex differences, and guide product labeling.

Since its establishment in 1994, the OWH Research and Development Program has played an integral role in promoting sound policies and regulations by supporting research projects, workshops, and training to help FDA answer regulatory questions related to women’s health. OWH has funded more than 300 research projects that have expanded our understanding of the science of women’s health.

New Women’s Health Research Roadmap

To build upon these projects, OWH recently released a Women’s Health Research Roadmap that outlines seven broad areas where new or enhanced regulatory science research would be beneficial to women’s health. Future OWH-funded research will seek to:

  1. Advance Safety and Efficacy
  2. Improve Clinical Study Design and Analyses
  3. Identify Novel Modeling and Simulation Approaches
  4. Advance Biomarker Science
  5. Expand Postmarket Data Sources and Analysis
  6. Improve Health Communications
  7. Identify Sex Differences related to Emerging Technologies.

OWH will work with FDA Centers to increase collaboration and communication on research endeavors related to women’s health. By promoting collaborative research in mission critical areas, the Roadmap will better position FDA to foster the advancement of innovative products that promote and protect the health of all Americans.

While I may never be able to run a marathon, my injury helped guide my career at FDA and my work to strengthen FDA’s commitment to advancing women’s health research. And with the new Roadmap, we are well positioned to continue the progress that has been made in women’s health.

Pamela E. Scott, Ph.D., is Deputy Director and Director of Research and Development, FDA Office of Women’s Health.

Progress and Collaboration on Clinical Trials

By: Barbara D. Buch, M.D.

There are few responsibilities at FDA more important than reviewing the design and outcomes of clinical trials. Understanding the science behind the trials — and the individuals included in them — helps us to ensure that the medical products we approve are safe and effective.

Dr. Barbara BuchLast year, FDA took important steps to support the inclusion of diverse populations in clinical trials. Following Congress’s directive in Section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, FDA is looking more closely at the sex, age, and race/ethnicity data that are collected in clinical trials.

In August, FDA published an Action Plan designed to address three specific priorities: improving the quality and comprehensiveness of demographic subgroup data collection, reporting and analysis; identifying and eliminating barriers for increased participation in clinical trials; and improving the transparency of subgroup data.

We’ve come far in achieving this plan. As we begin 2016, I want to outline our progress in preparation for the next important milestone: a public meeting on this topic on February 29.

Priority 1 – Quality

  • FDA updated and/or finalized relevant guidance on demographic subgroup data, as illustrated by these two examples of FDA staff training and/or outreach to external stakeholders:
  • The Office of Minority Health (OMH) developed a plan that supports specific research projects and leads to better understanding of medical product clinical outcomes in racial/ethnic demographic subgroups.
  • The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) modified their clinical review templates:
    • CDER developed a review process that encourages reviewers to watch for inappropriate clinical trial exclusion and inclusion criteria; accompanying training emphasizes the need to include broad population diversity in clinical trials.
    • CDRH and CBER modified statistical reviewer templates to include analysis of demographic subgroup information.
  • CBER and CDER incorporated discussions on diverse inclusion and subgroup participation and analysis into pre-application submission meetings with industry.
  • FDA updated its MedWatch forms to standardize collection of demographic information on possible adverse events that occur after medical products are broadly available on the U.S. market.
  • And a few days ago, the Office of Women’s Health (OWH) posted their Research Roadmap and its strategic plan for women’s health research. OWH also funded two research projects:
    • Methods to improve data quality in demographic subgroups
    • Examination of sex-specific outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Priority 2 – Participation

  • FDA is making demographic information from clinical trials more easily available to consumers through its easy-to-read online Drug Trials Snapshots webpage and a corresponding article for consumers.
  • The Office of Minority Health and the Institute of Medicine convened a Public Meeting to discuss minority health disparities and clinically meaningful differences.
  • FDA and The Johns Hopkins University co-sponsored a clinical trials workshop, Assessing Safety and Efficacy for a Diverse Population.

Priority 3 — Transparency

  • FDA established a Language Access Plan Working Group designed to implement communication strategies sensitive to the needs of under-represented subpopulations, focusing on language access and health literacy.
  • CBER launched a transparency pilot program to make demographic information available to physicians and the public for original Biologics License Applications.
  • CDRH modified templates for certain documents that are posted to the FDA website upon approval of certain medical devices to ensure that demographic information is consistently included.

We’ve certainly made progress, and will continue the forward momentum in the years to come. And we will need the continued investment of our stakeholders and partners.

We look forward to continuing this important and productive conversation with you next month at the public meeting.

Barbara D. Buch, M.D., is the Chair of the 907 Steering committee and the Associate Director for Medicine in FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

FSMA Implementation: The Road Is Challenging, but the Company Is Extraordinary

By: Michael R. Taylor

As we begin 2016, it’s a good time to reflect on the extraordinary engagement we’ve had on food safety with the food-producing community and its continuing impact as we move forward to implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

Michael R. TaylorIn August and September 2013, we took three important trips – to the Pacific Northwest, New England and Europe – to talk about the rules we had proposed earlier that year to implement FSMA.

What we learned on those trips made a huge impression, one that ultimately shaped more than just the rules. It had a profound effect on our understanding of the diverse global community of food producers, and opened our eyes to the food safety imperative that guides them.

More recently, we retraced our steps this November and December, making those journeys again to discuss the five FSMA rules that became final this fall — establishing preventive controls for human and animal food, setting produce safety standards, and strengthening oversight of imported foods.

First, some background. We had been traveling to farms since 2009, well before FSMA was signed into law in 2011, listening to and learning from farmers. The visits in 2013 were particularly important because FSMA had become law by then and we had specific proposals to discuss.

In the Pacific Northwest and New England, we focused on issues as different as the climate and geography of those regions. Growers who created lush farmland in the high desert regions of Idaho, Oregon and Washington using canal-fed irrigation systems were chiefly concerned about the agricultural water standards. In Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, discussions centered on the impact of FDA’s plans on the local food movement and on farmers’ efforts to innovate and diversify.

There was a common theme, however: Growers have been understandably concerned about where we’re headed with these food safety regulations and how they will affect farms, especially those that have been in families for generations. So in 2013, with specifics on the table, there were some tough conversations about the merits of our proposals – and how they could be improved. In Europe, our discussions were primarily with our foreign regulatory counterparts, but also reflected uneasiness about the FSMA rules, particularly their impact on foreign trade.

The bottom line is that through these trips, our eyes were indeed opened to some realities. It became clear that we’d need to make changes for the regulations to work for the food industry while still protecting public health.

Fast forward to 2015. We saw familiar faces in our return to the Pacific Northwest and New England for public meetings in Portland, Oregon, on December 1, and in Brattleboro, Vermont, on December 14. These are people who were frank about their reservations and then rolled up their sleeves to work with us on finding solutions. And we did find solutions, building flexibility into the rules that give food producers and importers options and alternatives that still meet important safety criteria.

And in Europe, too, the conversation has turned to next steps. In early December we returned to Brussels and again met with our European Union regulatory counterparts. Europe has similar overarching food safety principles as the U.S. and the leaders we met want to leverage their resources and avoid duplication of effort. And we are looking into that now, beginning by comparing the public health protections in the European standards with those built into the FSMA rules.

The reception was enormously positive in all three places. We’re in a good place with the FSMA rules. Five of the seven rules we proposed have now been finalized, and we intend to publish final regulations on sanitary transportation and intentional adulteration in the spring. President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for FSMA implementation was close to fully funded, with FDA set to receive $104.5 million of the $109.5 million requested. This critical funding will enable us to maintain our momentum toward timely, comprehensive implementation.

We at FDA are gratified and grateful for what we’ve seen since we first took to the road in 2009. It’s clear that from the smallest farm to the halls of Congress, from local food centers to operations half-way around the world, there is a deep, shared commitment to produce safe food.

Without any doubt, there’s still a lot of hard work to be done, and we know some food producers are still apprehensive about the impact of our regulations on their livelihood. So, we will hit the road again beginning in January for more state and international meetings. We are committed to continuing the conversation and implementing FSMA in a practical way. Working together, we will create the modern food safety system envisioned by FSMA, one that makes every reasonable effort to prevent food safety problems and protect consumers and their families from foodborne illness.

Michael R. Taylor is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine

FDA 2015: A Look Back (and Ahead) – Part 3: Food, Tobacco, and Antimicrobial Resistance

By: Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D.

In my third and final post reflecting on FDA’s work to protect and promote public health in 2015, we’ll take a look at our achievements in food, antimicrobial resistance, and tobacco product regulation.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.Modernizing Food Safety

In a groundbreaking development, in 2015 FDA took several major steps to prevent foodborne illness by finalizing five rules that will implement the landmark FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

In September, we issued the first two final FSMA rules mandating modern, preventive practices in both human and animal food facilities. They will help establish a food safety system in which industry systematically implements measures we know are effective in preventing contamination.

In November, we took another step toward modernizing our food-safety system by issuing the final produce safety rule and two import safety rules. For the first time, these new rules establish enforceable science-based safety standards for the growing and harvesting of produce and make importers accountable for conducting risk-based verification to determine that imported food meets U.S. safety standards. In addition, through this rulemaking we established a program for the accreditation of third-party certification bodies to conduct food safety audits of foreign food facilities.

Together, these rules are designed to reduce the burden of foodborne illness in the United States. They support the broad goal of the law to proactively prevent problems across the entire food system, and to strengthen food safety coordination with other nations that produce the foods that Americans consume.

Strengthening Nutrition, Protecting Health

2015 also saw important progress in the area of nutrition. We finalized our determination that partially hydrogenated oils, the primary dietary source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in human food, a decision that will make an enormously positive difference in the health of Americans. We also are continuing to work to develop sodium reduction targets, which have the potential for major public health gains and cost savings to the health care system.

And late in 2014, we finalized two new rules requiring caloric information on restaurant menus and menu boards and on vending machines. These rules are designed to provide consumers with more information so they can make informed choices for themselves and their families, without placing an undue burden on small businesses or individual food establishments. We are working with industry to support implementation.

We also proposed additional changes to the familiar “Nutrition Facts” label on packaged foods which, when finalized, will give Americans updated nutrition information, reflecting the most current nutrition science, to help them make healthy choices when purchasing packaged foods. This includes a revision that would establish a Daily Reference Value for added sugars and require the percent Daily Value on the label. There is strong evidence healthy dietary patterns of intake associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease are characterized, in part, by lower intakes of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages.

Combating Antibiotic Resistance

Another area in which we saw great progress in 2015, thanks to collaborative efforts across our government and with our international partners, was in combating antibiotic resistance. If left unchecked, this growing problem threatens to turn back the clock on decades of progress in infectious disease control and medical discoveries, drive health care costs higher, and increase human disease and death.

Early in 2015, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria, a plan that that recognizes that humans and animals share the same environment – and the same microbes – and so we must address the use of antibiotics in both.

One of the central principles for slowing the development of resistance – in both humans and animals – is the judicious use of antibiotics. For decades medically-important antibiotics have been used not only to treat sick animals, but to promote growth in healthy ones. The FDA has already made significant progress developing policies to promote appropriate use of antibiotics in animal health. For instance, we issued the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) final rule, an important part of our overall strategy because it promotes judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in feed for food-producing animals by bringing the use of these drugs under veterinary supervision.

But a critical part of combating resistance is to know the changing patterns and use of antibiotics in farming and how these changes impact resistance patterns among foodborne pathogens associated with farm animals. We are strengthening our data collection under the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Program in several ways, and in September we held a Public Meeting with several other federal agencies on data collection on farms. This and other work will help us to develop a more comprehensive and science-based understanding of antimicrobial drug use and resistance in animal agriculture and help us to measure the impact of our regulatory actions.

While the problem of antimicrobial resistance is finally getting the attention it warrants, it will require an ongoing and sustained effort to overcome the decades of neglect that led to the current situation.

Regulating Tobacco Products

Our newest area of regulatory oversight is one of our busiest. It’s hard to believe it was more than 50 years ago that the Surgeon General issued the first Report on Smoking and Health. But it’s been just six years since Congress passed the Tobacco Control Act, which gave FDA the authority to oversee the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of regulated tobacco products and protect the public from their dangers.

We’ve already built a great deal on that foundation, creating our Center for Tobacco Products and establishing a framework for industry registration, product listing and submission of information on ingredients in tobacco products; implementing and enforcing a statutory ban on cigarettes with certain characterizing flavors; and restricting access and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to youth. We’ve also already begun to build a robust regulatory science program to conduct and fund science and research programs designed to help us better understand the risks associated with tobacco use.

After an extraordinary amount of study and research, and review of tens of thousands of public comments, FDA is preparing to publish the final rule to extend the agency’s authority over additional, unregulated tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah tobacco, and pipe tobacco. Like everything we do at FDA, this policy will be based on a thorough scientific evaluation of how individual products in each category may affect public health.

And in 2015, we unveiled a dynamic public education campaign designed to prevent and reduce tobacco use among at-risk African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian American/Pacific Islander youth age 12 to 17. This promising effort flows from our “Real Cost” campaign launched in 2014, which I’m pleased to note, won a gold “Effie Award” for effectiveness in advertising in the Disease Awareness and Education category.

It’s been a fruitful and productive year at the FDA. I am proud of all we have accomplished in 2015 and look forward to our continued progress.

Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs

FDA 2015: A Look Back (and Ahead) – Part 2: Medical Product Safety and Oversight

By: Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D.

In my first look back on FDA’s 2015 accomplishments, I focused on our achievements in medical product innovation and our constant drive to make safe, effective and innovative products available. Because FDA’s responsibility covers the entire life cycle of products, in this second year-end blog post, I will review FDA’s impact on medical product safety and oversight.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.Responding to Ebola

In a world where disease knows no borders FDA’s response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa demonstrates how we use our scientific expertise and regulatory authorities to the fullest extent possible to address a tragic public health crisis of global impact. Our response involved collaborating with partners across government, pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, international organizations like the World Health Organization, and our international regulatory counterparts. We played a key role in expediting the availability of diagnostic tests and investigational therapeutics and vaccines, as well as investigating fraudulent products marketed to diagnose, prevent and treat Ebola. And many FDA commissioned corps officers of the U.S. Public Health Service served on the front lines, deployed in a humanitarian mission to provide care to patients at the Monrovia Medical Unit in Liberia, one of the West African nations that were hard hit by the outbreak.

Addressing Transmission of Infections from Duodenoscopes

This year we took steps to help protect the public from the risk of transmitted infections, including antibiotic-resistant infections, from duodenoscopes. Duodenoscopes are complex devices used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a potentially life-saving procedure to diagnose and treat blockages in the pancreas and bile ducts. In the United States, duodenoscopes are used in more than 500,000 ERCP procedures each year.

Last February, the FDA issued a safety communication to raise awareness about the risk of transmitted infections from duodenoscopes, after it determined that the design of these devices may impede effective reprocessing, even when the manufacturer’s reprocessing instructions are followed correctly. Reports also indicated that some healthcare facilities may not have adequately followed the manufacturer’s reprocessing instructions. To address these concerns, the FDA has been working with the device manufacturers to ensure that the reprocessing instructions for their duodenoscopes are put through the most rigorous testing. The Agency held a public advisory committee meeting in May to discuss the scientific challenges, and it incorporated recommendations for enhancing the safety margin of reprocessing duodenoscopes into a safety communication in August. Also in August, FDA issued Warning Letters to all three duodenoscope manufacturers citing violations found during recent inspections. In October, the FDA ordered the manufacturers to develop postmarket surveillance studies of how the devices are reprocessed in real-world clinical settings.

Our foremost concern is protecting patients, and we are committed to taking steps to assure that duodenoscopes – and all reprocessed medical devices — are safe to use.

Compounding

We continue to respond effectively to the 2012 outbreak of fungal meningitis linked to contaminated compounded drugs. We are implementing the Drug Quality and Security Act and continuing our inspection and enforcement efforts at compounding facilities nationwide. To that end we have issued numerous policy documents regarding compounding and related activities to provide guidance to industry as we implement the new law. We’ve also held meetings with stakeholders, including pharmacy, physician, and consumer groups, and we have continued our active and successful collaborations with state governments.

Addressing the Opioid Abuse Crisis

Over the last year, we’ve been very focused on the growing epidemic of opioid abuse and addiction and its devastating impact on public health. This focus has required us to strike a delicate balance: ensuring medical treatments are available for patients who are in pain, while addressing the often tragic consequences of abuse and misuse, which all too often overwhelm individuals, families, friends and communities. Our approach is multi-pronged, from encouraging scientific investigation to improving the training of practitioners who prescribe these powerful medicines.

We believe it is vitally important to encourage the development of abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids and to support options for medication-assisted treatment of opioid-dependence. Final guidance for industry regarding the development of abuse-deterrent formulations was issued in April and several abuse-deterrent products have been approved. We are also making strides to treat the consequences of overdoses. In November, FDA approved the first nasal spray version of naloxone hydrochloride, to provide a route of delivery in addition to injection for this life-saving medication that can stop or reverse an opioid overdose. And we are working with our federal partners to improve access to naloxone.

While we cannot solve this complex problem alone, we remain committed to making the best use of our regulatory authorities and working with our partners both in and outside government to reduce the risks associated with opioids. To continue to achieve that, we have been engaging in a comprehensive review of our many current activities related to opioids and identifying which measures can and should be strengthened and what further measures are needed to address this crisis during 2016.

Ensuring the safety of the medical products we regulate requires us to manage a wide-range of issues across multiple scientific disciplines; and to employ scientists with the knowledge to solve today’s complex regulatory challenges. The last year brought many challenges, and just as many solutions.

In my final post, I will address some of our accomplishments in the area of food, tobacco product regulation, and antimicrobial resistance.

Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs

2015: Another Strong Year for Patients in Need of New Drug Therapies

By: John K. Jenkins, M.D.

Happy New Year! Looking back at 2015, I’m pleased to report another strong year for FDA approvals of novel new drugs, which offer many patients new treatment options for serious and life-threatening conditions. In 2015, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved 45 novel new therapies – significantly more than the average of 28 we have approved during the previous nine years of this decade.

John JenkinsBut far more important than quantity is quality – and the valuable new roles many of these drugs can serve in advancing medical care and the health of patients. During this past year, we approved many new drugs to treat various forms of cancer, including four to treat multiple myeloma, and others to treat lung, skin, breast, brain, colorectal, and other cancers. We also approved new drugs to treat heart failure, high cholesterol, cystic fibrosis, and irritable bowel syndrome, as well as the first approved reversal agent for a commonly-used blood thinner. And, for the second consecutive year, we approved more drugs to treat rare diseases than any previous year in our history.

Here are a few highlights of these approvals:

  • More than one-third of the novel new drugs CDER approved in 2015 were identified by FDA as “first-in-class,” for example, drugs that use a new and unique mechanism of action for treating a medical condition;
  • More than 40% of these new therapies were approved to treat rare or “orphan” diseases that affect 200,000 or fewer Americans–Americans who often have few or no drug treatment options;
  • 60% of CDER’s novel new approvals for 2015 were designated in one or more categories of Fast Track, Breakthrough, Priority Review, or Accelerated Approval. Each of these designations helps speed the development and/or approval process and is designed to help bring important medications to the market as quickly as possible; and
  • 64% of CDER’s novel new approvals were approved first in the United States before any other country.

For more details about 2015’s approvals, please visit the Novel New Drugs Summary 2015.

As always, compromises were not made in our review standards as we considered the applications as efficiently as possible. In short, each of these therapies had to demonstrate that it was safe and effective before being approved. I am pleased and proud to be part of a team that helped bring these new drugs to market as safely as possible. My colleagues and I look forward to another productive year serving the American public!

John Jenkins, M.D., is Director of the Office of New Drugs in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research